The State Revolving Fund program represents a major shift in the ways governments address water quality needs. Using John Kingdon’s concept of policy streams, this study examines the formal targeting mechanisms employed by states to meet these goals and whether use of these mechanisms actually results in a greater percentage of program resources allocated to the targeted communities. The findings include the following: (a) targeting mechanisms are not widely used in states, (b) targeting makes little difference in the patterns of resource distribution to potential classes of communities, and (c) Kingdon’s notion of policy streams provides a useful heuristic to understand changes in implementation over time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Birnbaum, J. H. ,& Murray, A. S. (1987). Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, lobbyists, and the unlikely triumph of tax reform. New York: Vintage.
2.
Conlan, T. (1988). New Federalism: Intergovernmental reform from Nixon to Reagan. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
3.
Heilman, J. G. , & Johnson, G. W. (1991). State revolving loan funds: Analysis of institutional arrangements and distributive consequences(Final report submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior). Auburn University, AL: Auburn University.
4.
Heilman, J. G. , & Johnson, G. W. (1992). The politics and economics of privatization: The case of wastewater treatment. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
5.
Heritage Foundation . (1987, May 19). Building grass-roots support for privatization(Presentation by Rep. CurtWeldon; Heritage Lectures No. 112). Washington, DC: Author.
6.
Holcombe, R. G. (1992). Revolving fund finance: The case ofwastewater treatment. Public Budgeting and Finance, 12, 50-65.
7.
Johnson, G. W. ,& Heilman, J. G. (1987). Metapolicy transition and policy implementation: Newfederalism and privatization. Public Administration Review, 47, 468-478.
8.
Kelly, J. (1994).Unfunded mandates: The view from the states. Public Administration Review, 54, 405-408.
9.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins.
10.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies(2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
11.
Morris, J. C. (1994). Privatization and environmental policy: An examination of the distributive consequences of private sector activity in state revolving funds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University.
12.
Morris, J. C. (1996). Institutional arrangements in an age of newfederalism: Public and private management in the state revolving fund program. Public Works Management & Policy, 1, 145-157.
13.
Morris, J. C. (1997). The distributional impacts of privatization in national water quality policy. Journal of Politics, 59, 56-72.
14.
Nathan, R. P. ,& Doolittle, F. C. (1984). The untold story of Reagan’s “NewFederalism.”Public Interest, 77, 96-105.
15.
Palmer, J. L. , & Sawhill, I. V. (1984). Overview. In J. L. Palmer & I. V. Sawhill (Eds.), The Reagan record: An assessment of America’s changing domestic priorities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
16.
President’s Commission on Privatization. (1988). Privatization: Toward more effective government. Washington, DC: Author.
17.
Stone, D. A. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
18.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . (1984). Study of the future federal role in municipal wastewater treatment. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . (1989a). 1988 needs survey report to Congress: Assessment of needed publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities in the United States(EPA 430/09-89-001). Washington, DC: Author.
20.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . (1989b). SRF update. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
21.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . (1993). 1992 needs survey report to Congress: Assessment of needed publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities, correction of combined sewer overflows, and management of storm water and nonpoint source pollution in the United States(EPA 832-R-93-002). Washington, DC: Author.
22.
U.S. General Accounting Office . (1992). Water pollution: State revolving funds insufficient to meet wastewater needs(GAO/RCED-92-35). Washington, DC: Author.
23.
Watson, D. J. , & Vocino, T. (1990). Changing intergovernmental fiscal relationships: Impact of the 1986 Tax Reform Act on state and local governments. Public Administration Review, 50, 427-434.
24.
Zimmerman, D. (1987). Tax reform and the state and local sector. Public Administration Review, 47, 510-514.
